The US-sponsored neo-Nazi coup d’etat in Ukraine — an act of war

Posted by

0

Otan nazisme

The NATO logo has a right-turning and  a left-turning swastika in the four pointed star.

How much of the NATO war agenda is a recycled and updated German/U.S. Wall Street war agenda?
——————————————————————————

From Global Research

Violence and bloodshed continues to rock Ukraine as factions compete in the power vacuum of February 2014  coup in Kiev.

As the country struggles to find its way forward, however, it finds itself in the crosshairs of a NATO war agenda that has been unfolding for years.

This is the GRTV Feature Interview with our special guest, Professor Michel Chossudovsky. This GRTV program was first aired on March 21, 2014

This is the first Neo-Nazi government of the post war period.

Who are the architects of this Neo-Nazi government.

They claim to be Neoliberals, yet they support neo-Nazis.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-neoliberal-neo-nazi-coup-detat/5431339

Slavyansk surgeon talks about another May 2nd massacre in Semenovka

Posted by

0

From Fort Russ

BqFswtrIEAEiVEP.jpg
Mikhail Kovalenko, Slavyansk surgent

February 13, 2015
Andre Omelchenko for Newsbalt.ru
Translated by Kristina Rus

“The Ukrainian government has done everything to kill me personally”

“NewsBalt” interviewed Ukrainian doctor Mikhail Kovalenko, who was saving Novorossia civillians, militias and national guardsmen.

In two days, at midnight on the 15th of February, according to the Minsk agreements, bloodshed must end in Novorossia, bitter symbol of which for many is this photo from Slavyansk.

Information and analytical portal “NewsBalt” managed to find the man depicted in the picture, carrying in his hands the murdered girl, and talk to him. A doctor by profession, Mikhail Kovalenko now lives in Russia, but we will not mention the region, because the banderites are looking for a hero-surgeon.

– Mikhail Georgievich, this is a well-known photograph. The Ukrainian media said that it is the daughter’s father running away from the separatists, and that this girl was killed by the punishers. Is it you in the picture?

– Yes, it’s me. Where the picture came from, I don’t know. And the mines that killed this girl came from Karachun mountain. There was a Ukrainian battery, which regularly shelled the city. That’s where the fire came from.

– What are the events depicted in this picture?

– This happened on Trinity. We just returned with my wife from the church. At this time, city water system already did not function. In the single-house districts there were wells and all the neighbors went there to fetch water. The militia brought a generator (there was no electricity by then). Two explosions happened. They hit the spot where people got water. A militiaman ran from around the corner, carrying a child. Someone shouted: “There’s a doctor!” The fighter gave the girl to me. From my home to the hospital – 500 meters. I ran over there. Put her on the operating table, and realized that the child was dead. The girl had hip, abdomen, and head injuries. Then, when I was looking at this picture, I realized that the child was already dead. Then, in a rush, I didn’t see it.

– Who fired?

– Karachun mountain dominates over the city. Only mountain in our area. On it was a Ukrainian battery, which was constantly shelling the city. They fired from there. And the evidence clearly showed where the shells came from. Militia never fired on Slavyansk, I can vouch for that.

– Many Ukrainians supporting ATO [anti-terrorist operation], believe that the militias fired on themselves.

– A person can be convinced of many things. I myself had to convince the terminally ill that they will recover. They believed.

– Recovered?

– No. They were dying. But believed.

– Mikhail Georgievich, what are your impressions, memories from the beginning of the war?

– Until that Trinity I still had the feeling that it will be okay. They fired on the outskirts, but there were not many victims. The horror began on May 2nd. It is on May 2nd, when a column of the military, which took Karachun, fired on the village of Semenovka – small, by Donetsk standards, settlement, roughly two hundred yards.

Local residents blocked the road for the column, so that it would not get to Karachun. Locals made an agreement with the unit commander, that the soldiers will empty the ammunition into the air, and then report to his superiors: “fired everything and had to return”. And the regular UAF division shot a few rounds into the air, and then just started shooting at the people. This day was my shift at the hospital.

It was the first real slaughter. We got 16 people with gunshot wounds. Us, doctors, were not used to such injuries, especially in such quantities. Three received a bullet in the abdomen. One – in the chest. We lost him. The rest were wounded in the legs. That day we lost four. The rest survived. After this massacre some of the inhabitants fled to the city [Slavyansk]. Some stayed. There was a certain balance between the militia and Ukrainian troops. The militia took the position under the mountain. UAF dug in on the mountain.

At the initial stage there were 4 attacks on Slavyansk. There were many casualties among the civilian population. There were wounded among the militia. Even national guardsmen were brought to us. We took care of them. There was a lot of artillery shelling of residential areas. My house was bombed.

It is very scary when you hear the sounds of explosions, while operating on the wounded, and near the hospital there are such explosions that the building is shaking. The military somehow prepares for it. They know how to hide, how to behave in general. We don’t know that. Thirty meters from the hospital,  my senior operating nurse was killed. One house was bombed from aircraft. I am now settled not far from an airport. And only six months later stopped shivering when I hear the sound of a plane.

– Was there a lot of work?

– For some time I never left the hospital. Surgeons were constantly needed, because there was a non-stop flow of victims. We didn’t divide people into ours and theirs. We operated on all. Sometimes a militiaman and a national guardsman laid on beds next to each other.

– Mikhail Georgievich, how did you decide to move to Russia?

– June 17, when the militia left, I also left. After three or four days. First to Kharkov, then to Russia. We learned about the withdrawal of the militia exactly on the day when they left. The militias stopped by and said, “Doctor, we are leaving the city right now. Whoever wants to, can go with us now. Get in the car.”

We burned all the medical records. In Slavyansk militia almost all were local residents. Slavyansk by Donetsk standards is a small town – 120 thousand. Imagine what would happen to their families if UAF learned about their gunshot wounds? After militia left, the town was quiet all night. Some absolute, resounding silence. No people, no Ukrainian soldiers. Somewhere, about twelve o’clock, the first Ukrainian soldiers appeared in the city. People, of course, were hiding. I sat in the hospital and watched as two BTRs passed, then returned. Left for the night. The next day they again came back for the day,  left for the night. Only on the third or fourth day they began staying in the city. They made a caret [inverted “V”] with BTRs and slept inside.

– Why did you decide to leave?

– It’s personal. Personally I had been shot at. From cannons, small arms. Perhaps I can say that the Ukrainian government has done everything to kill me. They they didn’t kill me because I’m clever. Not because they didn’t try – they tried very well – but because I was lucky, I was able to avoid it. And to live in a country where the government personally shot at me, I just can’t.

– Did they believe they were in a hostile territory? Were they afraid?

– Yes. They are still afraid. A friend told me. After 18-19 o’clock there is no one in the city. No one goes out on the street. They patrol the city. My friend was out late, but was walking home before curfew. And then, ten meters from him, a machine gun round hit the asphalt. Without any warning. He jumped to the side: “What are you doing?”. And they said, “Turn and walk around”. I.e. when a civilian approaches them, they are afraid.

– What have you heard about extra-judicial executions in Slavyansk?

– People were disappearing. One of my friends disappeared. He was not in the militia. Just a small businessman. The majority of small entrepreneurs funded the militia. And in August his wife called, in tears, told me that her husband is missing for three days, and cannot be found. So only among my friends, there are two such facts.

– Mikhail Georgievich, did Strelkov raise everyone, or did the people rise up themselves?

– Strelkov appeared in a city ready to revolt. Therefore, “strelkovtsi” are almost all locals. It was a real popular uprising. At first people had shotguns, hunting rifles, a few German “schmeissers”, PPSh [Soviet submachine gun] …. Why people took up arms? There were mass rallies. And after the mass rallies people began to disappear. Plus everyone saw the footage from Korsun-Shevchenko. How they burned buses, beat and killed people. Until then I was skeptical about Maidan, with humor, as the last one, which was in 2004. Until the real slaughter began. Suddenly, like a devil out of a box popped the “Right Sector”, “Trident”, etc. We never heard about such organizations before. That’s when I got really scared. For the first time.

Video about “Korsun Massacre”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loKajkXoTBU

– The reason for resistance, was probably, not that you were forced to listen to news in the Ukrainian language?

– For many years we have heard from Kiev that in Donbass live not people, but “donbasiane,” that with these “donbasiane” they can speak only with a language of force, that Lvov – is a cultural capital. Despite the fact that they, excuse me, have a theater built by the Austrians and no theater company. And Donetsk academic theater staged “The Flying Dutchman” and this play was a world sensation. Only this was not mentioned anywhere in the Ukrainian press. This despite the fact that all of Europe was impressed with this “Flying Dutchman”. All this also played a role. We realized that no one will listen to us. As they said, “The government of winners came to power in Ukraine”. Not of the whole country, but “of the winners”.

Everything that I have observed in Ukraine, is fully described in Feuchtwanger, Remark. I felt like one, then another character in these novels. Only, for example, in the “Black Obelisk”, the characters live in a situation where the junta has already lost.

– You dealt with the Nazis face-to-face, even though wounded. Maybe after they saw the results of their “defense of Fatherland”, learned about the dead children, civilians, when there was no Ukrainian TV channels nearby, they changed their mind?

– I don’t recall that it has changed. And you know, I think it’s not the TV. I think its some psychotropic drugs. Those national guardsmen, whom I saw, looked like people under the influence of some other drugs. Perhaps from a fenamin group. This, apparently, was some kind of military pharmacology. It caused a decrease in the level of fear, pain threshold, increased muscle tone and responsiveness.

Had a chance to operate one of the fighters of national guard, who had a mortal wound. He behaved very inadequately. Was in a state of excitement. Aggressive. Didn’t feel pain at all. Got up, sat down. The expression on his face – indescribable. Glassy eyes, absolutely uncritical perception… Maybe this is just an opinion, maybe I’m wrong.

I think that the violence occurs in the process. Some submit to it, some don’t. Let’s take Khatyn. As it turns out, the Ukrainians did it. In the USSR this topic was a taboo. But it is now known that Khatyn – is a Ukrainian “achievement”. Same here. These are the same people with the same behavior.

– Why so few people at the initial stage went in the militia?

– They weren’t needed. My friend came to the assembly point. With his military papers, staff officer. He was asked: “Do you have children?”. He said – two. Didn’t take him. They took young, single, and retired.

– Have you heard about the hospitals, on the territories occupied by the junta, are full of raped women and even minor girls?

– I heard about it. But haven’t seen myself. And I believe it, because I saw these nazguardians.

– Mikhail Georgievich, is it possible to say that the Ukrainian government is carrying out a genocide of the population of Donbass?

– How would you describe it: a peaceful city, with militia made up of the residents of the city, is simply bombed by the government? Instead of talking with the residents, to send negotiators? Why was it not done? Why did they begin the shelling of the city?

And phosphorous bombs? I saw these burns. We had six people with these burns. I had seen it all and I am ready to testify under oath.

Did Poroshenko send any negotiators? At least to ask: “what do you want?”. People just wanted to feel like people. No one wanted to talk to us. And the war began.

– Would you like for the same shooting, the same war to begin in Central and Western Ukraine? That they feel the same, as your countrymen? That they realize that killing civilians is bad?

– Absolutely not! What is happening now in Ukraine – this is fascism. Understand correctly. Donbass is a place where people were not divided along ethnic lines. Where Russian, Ukrainian, Tatar, Armenian, Jewish and Uzbek drank cognac at one table. We ate and conversed about religion. Amazing scene.

– And how is the transition to civilian life?

– Friends in Russia helped with the move. And when we got here, it turned out that one of the hospitals of the city needs a surgeon and a therapist. And they took me and my wife. Slowly entering into a peaceful routine. Personally, I have only for a couple of weeks stopped shaking at night from the sounds of wedding fireworks. I want to wish everyone peace and a calm life.

Read other articles on the topic of “Effects of European integration of Ukraine” (Russian)

New Greek leadership takes action; will Greece leave the Euro?

Posted by

0

Questions:

  • Why was the German post-WWII debt repayment structured in a completely different way than that of Cyprus and Greece?
  • How much pressure was exerted by corporations such as Ford, GM, IBM, ITT, Coca Cola, and banks on the German debt repayment structure so that their investments and income were not lost?
  • Does Germany have a special status politically with the European elite? Is it a country “too big” or “too important” to fail?
  • Will Germany repay their debt to Greece?

Greek Exit from the Euro!
By Andreas C. Chrysafis
Global Research, February 14, 2015

There is a serious political and economic clash going on deep inside the chambers of the EU. The newly elected Tsipras government has triggered a tsunami that may not be so easily contained. The northern states dominated by Germany and braced by the ECB have now also regressed to blackmailing tactics. What they feared the most is about to happen; a battle has ensued between David and the mighty Goliath – everyone knows the end result! It may also cause a domino effect over other member-states and that’s the worst nightmare facing the EU institution.

All eyes are directed at the new charismatic young Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his unorthodox Finance Minster Yianis Varoufakis. A Greek Revolution of the Mind has sprung into action. Immediately since taking office the Greek government, has forbidden Troika to return to Greece and cancelled the selling off of the Piraeus Ports to private investors. That shocked the Eurogroup.

The Greek nation had had enough of Troika’s failed austerity measures and it was decided in Athens that economic colonization through the suffering of the Greek people could no longer be tolerated under any terms.

Unless Greece renegotiates and restructures the unsustainable Troika loans, it will be impossible to repay it and the nation will remain in debt for generations to come. Greece’s request to renegotiate Troika’s terms was a wise move but was rejected by the Eurogroup. Exacerbating tension between the two camps, the Greek government also decided not to adopt further EU sanctions against Russia.

That did not go down well either. But one thing is for certain; the government of Greece is no longer prepared to play ball and be dictated to by a group of unaccountable and unelected EU Troika bankers at the expense of the people and its integrity as a free democratic nation.

Knowing its limitations and economic strength, Tsipras’ government behaved responsibly in wanting to re-structure the country’s debt within the boundaries of the EU. The refusal of assistance by the Eurogroup but especially by Germany came of no surprise. Actually Germany should have behaved much better because after WW2, it also faced a similar situation. Instead, it chose to behave appallingly against Greece.

In fact Germany faced total bankruptcy from the strains of the Second World War but the Allied nations came to its rescue with a grand master plan; a plan that was based on a different school of thought on how to help a country out of debt.

The London Agreement on German External Debts known as the 1953 London Debt Agreement was established as an Agreement that in fact set a precedent for debt relief for poorer economies.

This Debt Relief Agreement negotiated by the Western allies (Britain, the USA, France and bankers) provided an inspired master plan to help Germany recover financially rather than to destroy it completely. The idea behind the plan prescribed was that a country; is more likely to repay its debts through economic recovery rather than economic suppression and stagnation!

For Greece (and Cyprus for that matter), the EU-Troika did precisely the opposite. It destroyed its economy; robbed people’s bank accounts (bail-in); caused massive recession; suppression; shut down banks; raised taxation and triggered massive unemployment. Troika’s economic rescue plan was actually based on economic colonization and its success depended, on firstly destroying all hope of recovery for the ultimate control.

Compare what the Allied Debt Relief Agreement did for Germany with what Troika’s Mnimonio rescue plan for Greece (and Cyprus) has done, and a contrasting picture emerges; one that shows double standards and sinister motives!

Analytically, Germany’s debts after the war amounted to 38.8 billion marks and the Agreement signed on 27 February 1953 reduced the debt to 14.5 billion, which amounts to a 62.6% reduction. The repayment period was also stretched out over 30 years and allowed Germany to postpone some payments until such time as re-unification. It was decided that the burden of servicing the entire debt if not reduced, meant that the German economy stood: little chance of a recovery!

The philosophy behind the Agreement was a masterpiece of the road to recovery, and it worked wonders. First and foremost, the Agreement provided that Germany was able to pay its external debt while maintaining a high level of growth and improving living standards of its population. In fact, it meant that they were allowed to pay back the loan without getting poorer. That was a superb piece of economic strategy that could only benefit both parties!

To achieve this, creditors agreed to help Germany in a number of positive ways such as but not limited to:

Reduce importation to assist and manufacture at home those goods that were formerly imported (equally helping with job-creation); creditors agreed to reduce their own exports to Germany; supported and purchased German exports to restore a positive trade balance; the debt service/export revenue ration, was not to exceed 5% and depended on how much the economy could afford; debt re-payment would derive directly from export revenue income; the Agreement also contained the possibility of suspending payments while conditions were re-negotiated in the event of reduced available resources. On the 3rd of October 2010 the last payment was made with 69,9 million euros. This payment was considered to be the last one to its creditors.

This is the kind of formula necessary for economic recovery and not Troika’s austerity, which destroys nations and reduces citizens to poverty. With the help of a hard working population Germany has become one of the most economically powerful and influential countries in Europe.

Compare what Troika’s rescue plan did for Greece, and it becomes obvious that the Resolutions (Mnimonios) introduced were never meant to restore economic recovery and growth like the 1953 London Debt Agreement did for Germany; they were geared to dominate through debt dependency.

In fact under the terms of the 1953 London Agreement on German External Debts, Germany owes the Greek people 476 million reichmarks ($14 billion) that Greece was forced to give Nazi Germany during its occupation. If 3% interest had been accrued over 66 years, the loan corresponds in today’s terms to $93 billion. The Tsipras government is now demanding that money back and if successful, it certainly would open up Pandora’s box for Germany.

If things remain unchanged, Greece will never be in a position to repay its crippling debt but will only enter into a deeper crisis. The annual interest payments alone (in billions) on a 350 billion debt would keep the nation in utter poverty and that’s precisely what the new government wants to avoid.

Equally, one can reasonably ask: what happened to all those billions borrowed? Where did it all go? Certainly it did not go to improving public services, the infrastructure and hospitals or to making people affluent and living with dignity. In fact the majority of those funds borrowed went straight back into the coffers of German and EU banks to bail themselves out at the expense of citizens. It is reported that less than 10% of the bailout money borrowed ever reached the people; that is what modern economic colonization does to poorer nations!

The new government recognized this and for the first time ever an elected government decided not to follow the footsteps of its predecessors who failed the people of Greece miserably.

A well-organized exit from the Euro currency and return to the Greek drachmas cannot be discounted. In fact it would be a wise decision because Greece will then determine its own exchange rate to help its economy grow free from EU constraints. As an EU member state, the UK did not adopt the Euro currency so why not Greece or Cyprus for that matter!

Actually, exit from the Euro may be more beneficial in the long run. However, there are various conflicting theories made by economists of a Euro exit but they all agree on one thing: that exit from the Euro, would not be easy but not impossible. The final word however, whether to retain the Euro or not, rests with the Greek people under the terms of a referendum. With transparency, well-informed citizens, can make well-informed decisions and the decision whether to retain the Euro or not, belongs to the people and not to a temporary government.

Out of the ashes of despair, Greece will rise up again and will succeed. It will do so because the nation’s dignity has been restored with thousands of people flooding the streets of Athens, Salonika and major cities to endorse their support for the new government. Unquestionably, a nation that has the full support of its people it will never fail.

However, there are certainly clouds looming on the horizon for both nations but on the positive side, Greece may be the catalyst to bring about changes for the better and that hope may also spread to Cyprus – we sure hope so for Cyprus’ sake!

Andreas C Chrysafis
Author – Writer – Artist
www.facebook.com/ACChrysafisAuthor
www.facebook.com/ACChrysafisArtGallery

http://www.globalresearch.ca/greek-exit-from-the-euro/5431292

Ukraine agrees to Monsanto land grab for $17 billion IMF loan

Posted by

0

From Popular Resistance, February 13, 2015
By Christina Sarich

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine. Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game.

Monsanto has an office in Ukraine. While this does not shout ‘culpability’ from every corner, it is no different than the US military’s habit to place bases in places that they want to gain political control. The opening of this office coincided with land grabs with loans from the IMF and World Bank to one of the world’s most hated corporations – all in support of their biotech takeover.

Previously, there was a ban on private sector land ownership in the country – but it was lifted ‘just in time’ for Monsanto to have its way with the Ukraine.

In fact, a bit of political maneuvering by the IMF gave the Ukraine a $17 billion loan – but only if they would open up to biotech farming and the selling of Monsanto’s poison crops and chemicals – destroying a farmland that is one of the most pristine in all of Europe. Farm equipment dealer, Deere, along with seed producers Dupont and Monsanto, will have a heyday.

In the guise of ‘aid,’ a claim has been made on Ukraine’s vast agricultural riches. It is the world’s third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of wheat. Ukraine has deep, rich, black soil that can grow almost anything, and its ability to produce high volumes of GM grain is what made biotech come rushing to take it over.

As reported by The Ecologist, according to the Oakland Institute:

“Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies.

There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont’.”

The nation WAS Europe’s breadbasket – and now in an act of bio-warfare, it will become the wasteland that many US farmlands have become due to copious amounts of herbicide spraying, the depletion of soil, and the overall disruption of a perfect ecosystem.

The aim of US government entities is to support the takeover of Ukraine for biotech interests (among other strategies involving the prop-up of a failing cabalistic banking system that Russia has also refused with its new alignment with BRICS and its own payment system called SWIFT). This is similar to biotech’s desired takeover of Hawaiian islands and land in Africa.

The Ukraine war has many angles that haven’t been exposed to the general public – and you can bet that biotech has their hands in the proverbial corn pie.

https://www.popularresistance.org/ukraine-agrees-to-monsanto-land-grab-for-17-billion-imf-loan/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-agrees-to-monsanto-land-grab-for-17-billion-imf-loan/5431312

The history of Wall Street’s unspoken relationship to Nazi Germany: dragon teeth to be planted all over Europe again

Posted by

0

Questions:

  • Do modern Germany and perhaps other NATO allies still want Lebensraum (“living space”) and the “conquest of Lebensraum”? The land grabs underway in Africa and Asia demonstrate that this issue hasn’t gone away, and Russia is so much closer.
  • Do Germany and European “elites” still regard Russia as Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans)? These are the sentiments of the Kiev regime and its partners. Those sentiments don’t bother the United States, Britain, Canada, Poland, or the other allies or their respective mass media. The genocide/ethnic cleansing directed against Russian speakers and others in Ukraine takes place without any condemnation by those allies, and is in fact being facilitated by those allies. That raises questions about how widespread these sentiments are.

By Yuriy Rubtsov
Posted on Strategic Culture Foundation, September 1, 2014
Edited by Global Research

Many media outlets compare the contemporary situation in Europe with the days before WWII. I would like to make an important correction here. Now we are watching the West fostering another Nazi regime represented by Kiev junta and it makes remember the second half of the 1930s when it did the very same thing cooperating with Germany turned into a fascist state.

Of course, the Ukraine we know today cannot measure up to Hitler’s Germany. But the first blow is half the battle. The running amok Fuhrer started as an unknown corporal preaching xenophobia and revenge.

It’s an open secret that Adolf Hitler was supported by the United States. The US penetration was significant, especially its cooperation with the German war industry. By 1933 the United States controlled key branches of Germany’s economy, as well as several large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, etc.

Big business started to trust Hitler. Those were the days of affluence for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as funds from abroad began to pour in. Thanks to large donations from Fritz Thyssen’s group including the United Steelworks (Vereinigte Stahlwerke AG), I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG) and mining industry tycoon Emil Kirdorf the party received 6,4 million votes to become the second largest in the Reichstag (parliament). Hjalmar Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970), a German economist, banker, liberal politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party, became the key connecting link between German industry and foreign donors.

British business and banking interests also started to channel donations to the Nazi party. On January 4, 1932 Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, met Hitler and German Chancellor Franz von Papen to conclude a secret accord on providing funds for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The US was also represented at this meeting. Both Dulles brothers were present. Western historians shy away from mentioning the fact. John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles were politically connected Wall Street lawyers, servants of corporate power, who led the United States into an unseen war that decisively shaped today’s world.

It is worth noting, that during the 1950s, when the Cold War was at its peak, the two immensely powerful Dulles brothers led the United States into a series of foreign adventures whose effects are still shaking the world. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State while his brother, Allen Dulles, was director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Federal elections were held in Germany on 5 March 1933. As a result of lavish donations coming in from abroad, the ruling Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler, who was appointed Chancellor on January 30, 1933, registered a large increase in votes emerging as the largest party by far. Nevertheless they failed to obtain an absolute majority in their own right and needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People’s Party (DNVP), for a Reichstag majority.

The new German government was treated extremely favorably by US and UK ruling circles. Western democracies kept silent when Berlin refused to pay reparations. Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, went to the United States in May 1933 to meet President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and leading Wall Street bankers. Germany was granted a $1 billion credit. And in June, during a visit to Norman in London, Schacht requested an addition $2 billion in loans as well as a reduction and eventual cessation of payment on old loans. Thus, the Nazis got something that the previous government could not.

In the summer of 1934, Britain signed the Anglo-German Transfer Agreement, which became one of the foundations of British policy towards the Third Reich, and by the end of the 1930′s, Germany developed into Britain’s primary trading partner. Schroeder’s bank turned into Germany and Great Britain’s main agent, and in 1936, its New York branch merged with a Rockefeller holding to create the investment bank «Schroeder, Rockefeller and Co.», which the New York Times described as «economic-propagandist axis of Berlin-Rome».

The ‘Secret Memorandum’ was issued by Adolf Hitler in August 1936. The memorandum went out only to a few senior Nazi leaders and its contents – information about the Four-Year Plan – was formally announced to the party’s faithful in September 1936 at the party rally in Nuremberg. The Secret Memorandum stated that in four years Germany was to develop capable combat-ready armed forces and its economy was to be mobilized to meet the needs of war. As he admitted to himself, Hitler viewed foreign credit as the financial basis for his four-year plan, so this didn’t raise the slightest alarm.

In August 1934, American oil giant Standard Oil purchased 730,000 acres of land in Germany and built large oil refineries that supplied the Nazis with oil. At the same time, the United States secretly provided Germany with the most modern equipment for its airplane factories, which were slated to produce Germany’s military aircraft.

In turn, Germany received a large number of patents from several American companies including Pratt and Whitney, Douglas, and the Bendix Corporation, and the “Junkers-87″ dive-bomber was built using purely American technology. As the war broke out, the monopolies stuck to the good old tried-and-true rule – nothing personal, only business. By 1941, when the Second World War was in full swing, American investment in the German economy totaled $475 million: Standard Oil invested $120 million alone, General Motors — $35 million, ITT — $30 million, and Ford — $17.5 million.

What motivated the interest of Western business in the growing might of Nazi Germany?

The goal was to direct Hitler to the East involving a German invasion of Russia. The conquest of Lebensraum («living space») was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal. At his first meeting with the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich («Empire») on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East and ruthless ‘Germanization’ as his two ultimate foreign policy objectives.

For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which in Hitler eyes was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler considered as Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent “Jewish revolutionaries”. These people were not “Germanizable” in his eyes; only the soil was.

The US and Britain, which were firmly opposed to the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, tacitly endorsed Hitler’s “conquest of Lebensraum” in the East, as initially stated in Mein Kampf:

“We National Socialists consciously draw a line under the direction of our foreign policy war. We begin where we ended six centuries ago. We stop the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and have the view on the country in the east. We finally put the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-war and go over to the territorial policy of the future. But if we speak today in Europe of new land, we primarily point to Russia and the border states”

In turn, the policy of appeasement was implemented by Western countries in the 1930s against a background of financial and economic cooperation of Anglo-American business interests with Nazi Germany.

In October 1930, Germany withdrew from both the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 (sometimes named the World Disarmament Conference or Geneva Disarmament Conference) and the League of Nations.

In March 1936, Hitler ordered his troops to openly re-enter the Rhineland which had been demilitarized under the Versailles Treaty.

In March 1938 Austria was annexed.

The West did not react.

Fall Grün (Operation Green), a German military plan to occupy Czechoslovakia, was approved by Hitler in December 1937. The execution of Operation Green was called off after the Munich Pact was concluded between England, France, Italy and Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938.

While Hitler signed the Munich agreement along with Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini,  the operation to invade Czechoslovakia prevailed. On October 21 he ordered to start preparations for the military annexation of the rest of Czechoslovakia and the Klaipeda Region (also known as the Memel Territory) which had been part of Lithuania since 1923.

In March 1939, Germany delivered an ultimatum to Poland demanding renegotiation of the Danzig agreement. The Polish Corridor (also known as Danzig Corridor, Corridor to the Sea or Gdansk Corridor) was a territory located in the region of Pomerelia (eastern Pomerania, formerly part of West Prussia), which provided the Second Republic of Poland (1920–1939) with access to the Baltic Sea, thus dividing the bulk of Germany from the province of East Prussia. The Free city of Danzig (now the Polish city of Gdansk) was separate from both Poland and Germany.

But Memel and Danzig were not the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was fully aware that nobody in the West had any intention to stand in his way. On April 1939 he secretly ordered Poland to be attacked on September 1.

With the seizure of Czechoslovakia, Hitler’s duel-track policy was an open secret even for the most shortsighted politicians and diplomats. The Soviet Union still cherished hope to build a collective system of security in Europe. It managed to make London and Paris start talks on creating a really effective alliance to counter the aggressor. But these talks were to reveal that the Western partners were reluctant to hinder Hitler’s expansionary policy to the East. Sir Alexander Cadogan (Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office) cited Chamberlain saying he would rather resign the premiership than conclude an agreement with the Soviets.

When Germany attacked Poland and the Second World War started, Western leaders pointed their finger at both the Soviet Union and Germany which signed the Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939. Supported by a choir of propaganda, they said it was not the Western appeasement policy, but rather the USSR-Germany Non-Aggression Pact which triggered the war.

In the wake of World War II, neither London, nor Washington, nor Paris want to hear the truth about these historical events. They signed the Nuremberg Trial verdict that found Germany guilty of grave crimes and violations of international law and the laws of war, without acknowledging who was behind Nazi Germany?  The political and financial elites of the United States, Great Britain and France were directly involved in fostering Nazi regime. They incited Hitler to move east.

The West has never recognized its responsibility for supporting Hitler’s regime.

In today’s context, it has done its utmost to prevent Russia’s return on the world stage as a leading actor.

Today it is fostering the ulcer of Nazism and xenophobia emerging right in front of our very eyes. To hide the truth it circulates the Washington-invented and Europe-inculcated story about “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.

Russia is demonized and provoked into direct confrontation with a view to triggering its involvement in Ukraine’s internal conflict.

While the Kiev junta is not “in the same league” as Germany’s Nazi regime, history shows that the ulcer of Nazism combined with the thrust of Russophobia is gaining momentum. And sooner or later it may be beyond the control of those who encouraged it in the first place.

The slogan “Ukraine above all” sounds  very much like a remake of Nazi Germany’s “Deutschland über alles”, (Germany above all). “Ukraine above all”  is being used to justify the crimes committed by Ukraine forces in Novorossiya.

Edited by Global Research

Original article:

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/09/01/dragon-teeth-to-be-planted-all-over-europe-again.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-history-of-wall-streets-unspoken-relationship-to-nazi-germany-dragon-teeth-to-be-planted-all-over-europe-again/5398757

Profits über Alles! Corporate America’s partnership with Nazi Germany — video and report

Posted by

0

This report answers questions about American foreign policy and American government loyalties and objectives.

This report also shows the seamless continuum of events to the present day. It provides background on the drivers and facilitators, including the intelligence community, the military, and the corporate captains, the ongoing issues, including the attacks on Russia, and the ongoing collaboration with Nazi and fascist members in world society.

From Global Research
Video by Jacques R. Pauwels, February 12, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6UgHmeiXyo&list=UUvtTGZEcS8mbWdB7prg4QNw

Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler. Review Article.
By Jacques R. Pauwels.
Global Research, May 15, 2014.

Editorial Note
This article was first published by Global Research almost ten years ago [now eleven years ago] on 8 June 2004.

While America is at war in Ukraine, supportive of Neo-Nazi proxy regime, this incisive and carefully researched article by Dr. Jacques Pauwels provides us with a historical understanding of the relationship between American corporations and Nazi Germany.

The support of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine is part of a longstanding relationship.
GR Editor, May 15, 2014

In the United States, World War II is generally known as “the good war.”

In contrast to some of America’s admittedly bad wars, such as the near-genocidal Indian Wars and the vicious conflict in Vietnam, World War II is widely celebrated as a “crusade” in which the US fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship.

No wonder President George W. Bush likes to compare his ongoing “war against terrorism” with World War II, suggesting that America is once again involved on the right side in an apocalyptic conflict between good and evil. Wars, however, are never quite as black-and-white as Mr. Bush would have us believe, and this also applies to World War II. America certainly deserves credit for its important contribution to the hard-fought victory that was ultimately achieved by the Allies. But the role of corporate America in the war is hardly synthesized by President Roosevelt’s claim that the US was the “arsenal of democracy.” When Americans landed in Normandy in June 1944 and captured their first German trucks, they discovered that these vehicles were powered by engines produced by American firms such as Ford and General Motors. 1 Corporate America, it turned out, had also been serving as the arsenal of Nazism. Continue reading →

Obama: “We have to twist arms when countries don’t do what we need them to do”

Posted by

0

From RT

President Barack Obama has said the reality of “American leadership” at times entails “twisting the arms” of states which “don’t do what we need them to do,” and that the US relied on its military strength and other leverage to achieve its goals.

In a broad-ranging interview with Vox, which Obama himself described as a venue “for the brainiac-nerd types,” the US president both denied the efficacy of a purely “realist” foreign policy but also arguing that at times the US, which has a defense budget that exceeds the next 10 countries combined, needed to rely on its military muscle and other levers of power.

Lauding the rule-based system to emerge in the post-World War II era, Obama admitted it wasn’t perfect, but argued “the UN, the IMF, and a whole host of treaties and rules and norms that were established really helped to stabilize the world in ways that it wouldn’t otherwise be.”

He argued, however, that the efficacy of this idealistic, Wilsonian, rule-based system was severely tested by the fact that “there are bad people out there who are trying to do us harm.”

In the president’s view, the reality of those threats has compelled the US to have “the strongest military in the world.” Obama further says that “we occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do if it weren’t for the various economic or diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had — if we didn’t have that dose of realism, we wouldn’t get anything done, either.”

‘We occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn’t do what we need them to do’

Obama argues that the US doesn’t have “military solutions” to all the challenges in the modern world, though he goes on to add that “we don’t have a peer” in terms of states that could attack or provoke the United States.

“The closest we have, obviously, is Russia, with its nuclear arsenal, but generally speaking they can’t project the way we can around the world. China can’t, either. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined,” he said.

Within this context, Obama said that “disorder” stemming from “failed states” and “asymmetric threats from terrorist organizations” were the biggest challenges facing the international community today.

Obama also argued that tackling these and other problems entailed “leveraging other countries” and “other resources” whenever possible, while also recognizing that Washington is “the lead partner because we have capabilities that other folks don’t have.”

‘We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined’

This approach, he said, also led to “some burden-sharing and there’s some ownership for outcomes.” Continue reading →

Washington wastes no time to sabotage Minsk

Posted by

1

By Finian Cunningham
Posted on Strategic Culture Foundation, February 14, 2015

With their noses out of joint and egos bruised, the United States and its European lieutenants immediately got to work to undermine the Minsk ceasefire deal by twisting the terms of the accord and seeking to frame Russia for its imminent failure.

A Washington Post headline set the pace with this headline hours after the Minsk negotiations wrapped up in the Belarus capital. ‘Putin announces ceasefire with Ukraine,’ declared the Post, mendaciously implicating Russia as a protagonist in the year-old conflict, which, it is inferred, is now suing for a peace settlement.

US Secretary of State John Kerry, along with trusty British and Polish allies, warned Russia of more sanctions if the Minsk truce was not «fully implemented».

«The United States is prepared to consider rolling back sanctions on Russia when the Minsk agreements of September 2014, and now this agreement, are fully implemented,» Kerry said in a statement.

In other words, Washington is still peddling the hoary narrative that Moscow is an aggressor and is to blame for the conflict. Rolling back sanctions «when» Minsk is «fully implemented» is the US giving itself a licence to covertly sabotage the ceasefire at every turn and to maintain its unwarranted sanctions on Russia, as well as following up on promised supply of weapons to the Kiev regime.

There seems little doubt that the Americans are reeling from the diplomatic coup that Russian President Vladimir Putin pulled off in Minsk this week, along with German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

Amid threats from the US last week that it was going to flood Ukraine with more heavy weapons, Putin and his European counterparts managed to broker a ceasefire to the conflict after marathon 17-hour negotiations. The truce is to be implemented this weekend and, it has to be said, constitutes only a slim prospect of bringing the civil war in Ukraine to a halt. It is fraught with many thorny issues, such as withdrawal of fighting units on both sides and the accepted definition of a demarcation line. The autonomous status of the separatist Donbas region is also far from clear, or whether Kiev is prepared to follow up with mutual negotiations with the breakaway ethnic Russian population.

Nevertheless, the mere agreement, in principle, by the Kiev regime and the pro-separatist rebels of the eastern Ukrainian region is a welcome chance for a cessation in violence that has cost nearly 5,500 lives and more than one million refugees. That Putin, along with Merkel and Hollande, managed to achieve this tentative breakthrough is something of a feat in diplomatic skills and commitment. The development also tends to negate the official Western narrative that purports to paint Russia as an aggressor and threat to European peace.

The Minsk deal properly frames the conflict as a civil war between the Kiev regime and the Donbas separatists, which Russia is trying to dampen by acting as a facilitator of negotiations between the warring sides.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was on the mark when he said after the Minsk talks that Russia is a guarantor of the peace deal, not a party obliged to fulfil its implementation. He reiterated that Moscow is not a participant in the conflict, as Western media have, and continue, to assert.

«Russia is the country that was called by the parties of the conflict,» said Peskov. «This is the country that called on the parties of the conflict to sign a complex of measures to fulfil the Minsk agreements. But Russia is not one of the parties to fulfil these measures. This is the country that is acting as the guarantor, that comes forward with a call, but, obviously, it’s not a party that needs to take any actions for [the fulfilment]. We simply can’t do this physically because Russia is not a participant in the conflict,» added the Kremlin spokesman.

It was left to the British premier David Cameron and the ex-Polish president Donald Tusk to undermine the latest Minsk chance for peace by casting aspersions on Russia and re-framing the conflict as one of external aggression on Ukraine.

Cameron talked, with typical British haughtiness, of Putin needing to change his behaviour, while Tusk added to the narrative of demonising the Russian leader by insinuating that he is not trustworthy.

Cameron, speaking at an EU summit in Brussels on Thursday, said: «If this is a genuine ceasefire, then of course that would be welcome. But what matters most of all is actually actions on the ground rather than just words on a piece of paper. I think we should be very clear that Putin needs to know that unless his behaviour changes, the sanctions we have in place won’t be altered.»

Tusk, who is now the European Council President, said: «If [the Minsk agreement] does not happen we will not hesitate to take the necessary steps. Our trust in the goodwill of President Putin is limited. This is why we have to maintain our decision on sanctions.»

Given that the Western-backed Kiev regime has serially violated past ceasefires, which led to the latest escalation of violence, it would be naive to expect that the latest peace bid will be honoured. The Kiev junta has been emboldened to prosecute its criminal war against the Donbas population because of the unswerving political, financial and military support that Washington has indulged. Massive, systematic war crimes by Kiev have been whitewashed and absolved by Washington with spurious, unfounded claims of «Russian aggression».

This is because the US-backed regime-change operation in Ukraine that brought the Kiev junta to power last February is fundamentally predicated on Washington’s long-term objective of destabilising Russia. That is why the prospects of a ceasefire being implemented are something of an oxymoron. A peace settlement in Ukraine would only be an impediment to Washington’s geopolitical objective of undermining Russia.

The criminal regime in Kiev has become something of a specialist in committing false flag terrorist atrocities, which it and its Western sponsors then duly attribute to «Russian-backed rebels». The massacre in Donetsk on January 21, in Mariupol on January 24, and this week in Kramatorsk, in which up to 17 people were killed from Smerch rockets, have all the hallmarks of false-flag operations perpetrated by the US-backed, trained and equipped Kiev regime forces.

In the Kramatorsk incident, on the eve of the Minsk summit, the Kiev regime claimed that the Smerch rockets were fired from separatist-held Gorlovka, which is 80 kilometres away, and the outer limit of the munition’s range. The separatists denied the attack, saying that they do not target civilian areas. Hours after the massacre, Kiev President Petro Poroshenko arrived in Kramatorsk for photo-opportunities with victims lying on hospital beds. That Poroshenko would hurry to a town that is under fire is doubtful if the rebel threat was real. Also speaking as if from a script, he said: «It is savages who use cluster bombs against civilians. It is a crime against humanity when civilians are killed by Russian weapons in their homes.»

The next day, the «outraged» Poroshenko was in Minsk warmly shaking hands with Putin. So much for Russia war crimes.

To say that the latest ceasefire will be easily sabotaged is an understatement, given the past conduct of the Kiev regime. All it has to do is to keep fighting and committing crimes and that will be «evidence» of Russia not implementing Minsk. That will then allow Washington and its dutiful British and Polish allies, along with the obliging Western news media propagandists, to blame Russia for the failure in «fully implementing» the ceasefire. More American weapons can then be funnelled into Ukraine and more sanctions ratcheted up.

Russian President Vladimir Putin deserves huge credit for showing statesmanlike leadership over the Ukraine crisis. The trouble is that the Americans are playing a very different and dirty game in which there are no rules to abide by.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/14/washington-wastes-no-time-to-sabotage-minsk.html

 

Vladimir Putin’s remarks following adoption of declaration on Ukraine, February 12

Posted by

0

“Kiev authorities still refuse to have direct contacts with representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Even though they have not been recognised, we have to proceed from the realities of life and if everyone wishes to achieve an agreement on establishing long-term relations, direct contacts are essential.”

From The Kremlin, February 12, 2015

Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petro Poroshenko took part in the talks on a settlement to the situation in Ukraine. At the final stage, they were joined by Heidi Tagliavini, OSCE Special Representative to the Trilateral Contact Group on the Ukrainian Settlement.

Participants from the Russian side included Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Karasin, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov.

Following the Normandy format talks, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany adopted a declaration in support of the Measures to Implement the Minsk Agreements adopted on February 12 by the Contact Group on the Ukrainian Settlement.

Vladimir Putin also made a statement for the press.

* * *

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good morning,

This was not the best night of my life, but the morning, I believe, is good. This is because, despite the difficult negotiations, we finally managed to agree on the key issues.

Incidentally, you might wonder why the negotiations took so long. In my opinion, this was because unfortunately the Kiev authorities still refuse to have direct contacts with representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Even though they have not been recognised, we have to proceed from the realities of life and if everyone wishes to achieve an agreement on establishing long-term relations, direct contacts are essential.

We operated under the existing conditions and, in my view, have managed to agree on many things. The first is that we agreed on a ceasefire to begin at midnight on February 15. The second item that I find extremely important is the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the current line of confrontation for Ukrainian troops and from the line established on September 19, 2014 in Minsk for the Donbass self-defence forces.

Then comes a set of matters dealing with a long-term political settlement. This includes several items, the first being a constitutional reform that should take into consideration the lawful interests of the people residing on the territory of Donbass.

This is followed by matters dealing with a solution to border issues upon agreement with the Donbass militia, humanitarian issues, and the implementation of the earlier adopted law on the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk territories.

Finally, there is a set of economic and humanitarian items.

We proceed from the notion that all the parties will show restraint until the complete ceasefire. The problem here was that representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics claimed that in response to the aggressive actions of the Kiev authorities they not only held back the Kiev forces but also managed to mount an offensive and surrounded a group of 6,000 to 8,000 servicemen. They, of course, proceed from the idea that this group will lay down arms and stop its resistance.

We nevertheless call on both sides to show restraint and in order to avoid unnecessary excessive bloodshed and casualties they should do everything possible to ensure that the separation of forces, mainly the heavy equipment, is conducted without unnecessary bloodshed.

Representatives of the Ukrainian authorities believe their troops have not been surrounded and therefore think this process will go sufficiently smoothly. I had some initial doubts that I can share with you. If the troops really had been surrounded, then, logically, they will try to break free, while those who are on the outside will try to arrange for a corridor for their trapped servicemen.

Eventually, we agreed with President Poroshenko that we will instruct our experts – I am ready to do so – to establish what is actually going on there. In addition, I will repeat, we will try to develop a set of measures to verify the implementation of our decisions by both sides.

I would like to call on both conflicting parties once again to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible and proceed to a truly political process of a long-term settlement.

Thank you for your attention.

<…>

(Answering a question from a Russian journalist.)

One document has just been signed by the Minsk Contact Group, it is called Measures to Implement the Minsk Agreements.

The other document does not require signing: it is a statement by the President of France, the President of Ukraine, yours truly and the Federal Chancellor of Germany to the effect that we support the process.

Thank you.

 

http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23594

Vladimir Putin’s interview with Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram

Posted by

0

Posted on The Kremlin, February 9, 2015

Excerpt:
In the run-up to his visit to the Arab Republic of Egypt, Vladimir Putin gave an interview to the Al-Ahram daily newspaper…

QUESTION: How would you assess the situation in Ukraine and around it? What do you think will be the most appropriate way out of the Ukrainian crisis?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to remind Egyptian readers that the Ukrainian crisis was not caused by the Russian Federation. It has emerged in response to the attempts of the USA and its western allies who considered themselves ‘winners’ of the cold war to impose their will everywhere. Promises of non-expansion of the NATO to the East (given yet to the Soviet authorities) have turned out to be hollow statements. We have seen how NATO’s infrastructure was moving closer and closer towards Russian borders and how Russian interests were being ignored.

Moreover, in the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership Program there have been attempts to tear states which had been parts of the former USSR off Russia and to prompt them to make an artificial choice “between Russia and Europe.” The Ukrainian crisis has become a high point of these negative trends. We repeatedly warned the USA and its western allies about harmful consequences of their interference in Ukrainian domestic affairs but they did not listen to our opinion.

Last February the USA and a number of EU member states supported the coup d’état in Kiev. The ultranationalists who seized the power using military force put the country on the edge of disruption and started the fratricidal war.

Unfortunately, today we can see how the ‘war party’ in Kiev actively supported from the outside continues its attempts to push the Ukrainian people over the edge of a catastrophe. The situation in Donbas has aggravated dramatically. Ukrainian security forces resumed the bombing of Donetsk, Lugansk and other residential areas in the region. They are building up their military presence there. The “new wave” of mass mobilization has been announced in the country; there are calls for “taking revenge” after summer “military failures” and for a forceful “Ukrainization of Donbas.”

Ukraine is militarizing rapidly. We can judge by the statistics: in 2014, the Ukrainian military budget increased by almost 41 percent. This year, according to preliminary data, it will more than triple and reach more than $3 billion – which is about 5 percent of the country’s GDP. And this is happening when its economy supported mostly with international, including Russian, funds is in rather deplorable situation.

We certainly feel worried. We hope that common sense will prevail. Russia strongly calls for a comprehensive and exclusively peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis based on the Minsk agreements which were largely achieved owing to the initiative and efforts of the Russian side.

The most important condition for the stabilization of the situation is immediate cease-fire and ending of a so called ‘anti-terrorist’, but in fact punitive, operation in the south-east of Ukraine. Kiev’s attempts to exert economic pressure on Donbas and disrupt its daily life only aggravate the situation. This is a dead-end track, fraught with a big catastrophe.

It is evident that the crisis will continue until the Ukrainians themselves agree with each other. Until the unbridled radicalism and nationalism are finished with, and the society is consolidated around positive values and genuine interests of Ukraine. To achieve this, Kiev authorities need to listen to their people, find a common language and reach an agreement with all political forces and regions of the country. They need to elaborate such constitutional state system formula that would provide for a safe and comfortable living for all citizens with human rights being fully observed.

In the meantime, it is necessary to do one’s utmost to make all the parties to the conflict gather around the negotiating table. In this context, the Russian side stands for forging sustainable and direct contacts between Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk, for continued work within the Contact Group. On our part, we intend to actively contribute to that process.

For the full interview with questions on many topics:

http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/23575